Here is a little primer nutshell-type-thing on circumstantial evidence. Cat-people, listen up. It’s important to memorize this definition. Because where crime is concerned, the kittehs aren’t talking.
And talk about synchronicity — our friend Andrea has just put up a very interesting case study of circumstantial evidence on her blog. Check it out. You can see the circumstantial-evidence analysis at work in the field here.
We had a circumstantial-evidence incident here, too, a while back. It even involved a claw sheath, just like over at Andrea’s. Here’s the documentary evidence:
Take a look here, for the full case write-up.
Oh yes. The definition of circumstantial evidence? Here it is: When looking at two competing explanations, the one that makes the most sense is admissible to show culpability. Or, to put it another way: If the evidence plus explanation is consistent with the defendant’s innocence, not guilt, via a far more reasonable conclusion exonerating him, then the evidence is barred and the guilty argument forbidden as being too prejudicial.
In both Andrea’s and our case illustrated above, the explanation of guilt is far more reasonable than that of innocence. So the claw sheaths come into evidence, the jury gets to hear the argument, and conviction must inevitably follow.
Our case settled with a plea bargain. It was open and shut, given there was only one entity in the house at the time with the DNA profile depicted above. Andrea’s case — and ours yesterday, with the purloined purée — is more interesting because there are two suspects.
The reporters are waiting. We must announce the verdicts. Guilty as charged, on all counts.
Guilty! hee hee…
Love all the law analogies.
All that law-school misery — good for something. So glad.
and who will decide sentence? and more importantly, HOW will the sentence be carried out? I see a really lenient plea bargain in the works along the lines of “Hell yeah I’d do it again and whatcha gonna do about it and thanks for asking!?” Note that there is not a bit of tit for cat, that the bargain is mighty one-sided.
oh wait. it’s cats and a Bean. no contest!
(glad law school came in handy and was good for something more than miserable memories!)
Time served, would be my guess. Legal-speak, in other words, for what you say, my dear — cats rule and cannot be punished. Yeah, law school was a really horrible experience . . . but I have been able to use it to support myself, kinda-sorta — so it has paid me back. Somewhat. For which I am grateful, really I am.
and you have paid IT back! >:-D what’s that expression? living well is the greatest revenge? hell, I dunno. I’m horrrrrrible at metaphor and idiom–in any language!
that was cool what kolytyi said! but scary–two cats, one Bean… ruh-roh!
Triple threat! And I do believe It was Oscar Wilde who said that. A personal fave of mine, Oscar. Wouldn’t that be a fine thing, to live as well as he. And even better — not go to gaol. The triple-threat conspiracy must never be discovered.
LOVE Oscar. Me too, except about the gaol thing. I always thought I’d be at the Algonquin at the Round Table, but I would not have liked Dorothy Parker. That or translating at the UN. See what living right west of NYC does to a kid? Now look at me.
(Oh dear, am I making that up, about the Algonquin? Was it a different hotel?)
Oh dear, sounds like guilty to me. Then again, cats are never really guilty, are they? It must have been the slaves fault.
It’s always the slave’s fault. What can I say. We try — but — we are but human. Cats rule.
Oh my cod! MOL! Thank you for the laugh! Too bad neither of us have access to a DNA lab, I could have the nail tested and you could have someone test for tongue prints and left over drool! MOL But yeah, we’re pretty sure our guilty one would plead self defense and justifiable ..uh… claw-age?
Hah!
What if there are not only two but four competing explanations? It might be the case that the offence was committed by two partners-in-crime. It sounds implausible first but it is possible that this is the clever trick! Or it is also possible that the two CATS are completely innocent and we have to do with a huge, carefully calculated biped-deceit!!
Worlds within worlds. It’s all possible, isn’t it. Was just reading, along the lines of your cat-conspiracy theory, about cats being in the same social group if they groom each other. Looks like we got a group going on here. Even if the encounters seem to lead inevitably to fights . . . But perhaps also to criminal cooperation. United we stand.
Pingback: Circumstantial Evidence « Passing Before My Eyes